Happy System
Administrator Appreciation Day. "A special day, once a year, to acknowledge
the worthiness and appreciation of the person occupying the role, especially as
it is often this person who really keeps the wheels of your company turning."

Well, it takes two of you guys to equal one of me, so I must be doing something right. I'm sorry that you guys don't know anything about how the world works. I'm trying to educate you. It's sad that you both are going to vote for a side that trys to perpetuate the myth that minorities need them to survive. How sad to base your entire political agenda on hate and despair.

It's ok that you don't know what you're talking about. I don't mind. It's fun to watch you bluster away and post links to paranoia web sites. Oooh do you have any where they say Bush is in cahoots with Aliens and he plans to turn humans into oil so that he can give Haliburton the contracts to the intergalatic interstate?

Josh, you're full of hot air. You have no argument to present. The point of the link was collating relevant information and presenting it. It was not editorial in any way, it was a collection of links. Links to sites like nytimes.com and whitehouse.gov. Learn to keep quiet until you've got something to say.

Sorry, but I have to doubt anything that JediLuke says. I mean, the guy used F911 as a reference. If that doesn't show his stupidity, then I don't know what does. He might as well use Star Wars as a reference, as it's about as accurate as F911. Funny, no one mentions that Michael Moore is supposedly anti-gun and doesn't think anyone should have them. Yet he travles with 2 armed body guards. And this is the guy that some of you think tells the truth? You should pull your head out of your ass sometime.

Jediluke, seriously, it's hopeless. He doesn't get it. You will never convince him to even reexamine what he thinks is his opinion, he's made that clear by now. He just goes to his favorite sources to find half-truth retorts to any question or comment we present.I'm just trying to save you some time, I think your wasting it on this guy. He needs to take a trip somewhere and start thinking on his own, and we can't make him do that.

Funny, you say right there that Kerry says "If we need more troops we will send them", yet MSNBC just reported today that he plans on pulling some of the troops out as soon as he takes office. Seems to be flip flopping yet again.

As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.

Here is how we must proceed.

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.

Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.

In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.

To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission—a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance’s remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.

To bring others in it is imperative we share responsibility and authority. When NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always – always – answered the call of duty. So too with other key contributors. Every one has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.

I know that some will say that this is an impossible task, but I believe it is doable with the right approach. We must lead but we must listen. We must use every tool of diplomacy and persuasion to bring others along.

It took me all of a minute to find this. Again I wonder if you're bothering to look.

True, but THAT WAS NOT BUSH's FAULT! You cannot blame him for the CIA blowing their part of the job.

You missed the point. I said it was irresponsible to present it to the public the way that they did. I'm talking about Colin Powell making speeches with a vial of anthrax, Ashcroft talking about "imminent threats" and such. Come on man, can you really forget about this stuff so quickly? Go watch Farenheit 9/11 for a refresher.

I agree, but what harm has it done? I don't want an essay, give me ONE concrete example of how you personally are harmed by the Patriot Act.

Stop being so fucking simple. No, it hasn't done anything to ME. But there have been plenty of very frightening examples of the government "protecting" us. The complaceny and ignorance you're demonstrating is the scarier part, however. There was a particular story involving the FBI detaining a professor illegally and refusing to release the corpse of his wife that I couldn't locate, but these oughta suffice:

I don't think so. You do realize that there were other options besides a ground war, right? You do realize that there was no connection established between Al-Qaeda and 9/11 and Saddam, right? You do realize how many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq, right?

"Clarke has written that on the evening of September 12,President Bush told him and some of his staff to explore possible Iraqi links to 9/11. “See if Saddam did this,” Clarke recalls the President telling them.“See if he’s linked in any way."

"Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks."

"Arguing that the case for links between Iraqand al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons."

There's a lot more, but you can read it yourself. Again, does this information correspond with the manner in which the Bush administration presented the case to the American public? I don't think so. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're not close with anyone who's over there, or who has been killed in Iraq? Somehow I feel if this were the case, or if you had to go yourself, you'd feel a little differently. Or maybe you'd jump at the chance to torture petty criminals in an Iraqi prison, who knows.

He DID support the war, but constantly lies about it.

Example?

I just mentioned it as an example of a President stating a position in his candidacy and keeping that stand after being elected despite intense political pressure.

Uh, right, because Bush has led exactly the way he indicated he would when he was running for election...

Honestly, it seems very clear that you just don't like Kerry for some reason and are reaching for ways to justify it. I agree that the guy isn't terribly charismatic and I think that this nation could probably do better, but that's all very much beside the point. I think you need to clear your head and do some more reading and considering.

And I really like Kerry's plans for Iraq - "I have a secret plan that I am not going to share with anyone until I am elected".

WTF is that?!?!? A secret plan? You want to be elected PRESIDENT and you aren't going to share your plans and goals with the people? How can anyone evaluate your approach to this "problem" if you won't share it with anyone? This is what I mean - he CANNOT and WILL NOT elaborate on how he intends to approach this issue. That should really make you pause about voting for this guy.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

"And considering the nature of the intelligence, which we now understand was not very reliable"

True, but THAT WAS NOT BUSH's FAULT! You cannot blame him for the CIA blowing their part of the job. Is that too complex to understand?

"Obviously we need to give law enforcement the ability to enforce the law, but not with sweeping pieces of broadly worded legislation that can be very easily abused."

I agree, but what harm has it done? I don't want an essay, give me ONE concrete example of how you personally are harmed by the Patriot Act. Just one. You can't - because your freedoms have not been infringed upon in the least.

"So you still think that invading Iraq was NECESSARY to protect this country?"

In the long run, yes. The country was a known supporter of terrorism (see previous posts) and we had verified threats of upcoming Iraq terrorist attacks against America or American interests from the Russian intelligence agency. You may disagree, but I would rather hunt down the enemy where they live than fight them on our own soil. I guess you'd rather wait for another 9/11 to happen before pulling your own head out of the sand and see the problem.

"And on that childish note, I think I've wasted enough time talking to you. Your most recent post was far too long to bother wading through, so I won't."

It wasn't childish - Kerry has stated that he would want the world's approval for action (including our "alienated" allies of France and Germany) prior to acting on the world stage. We were enforcing the multiple UN resolutions - WE ALREADY HAD THE BACKING OF THE UN.

Convenient that you don't want to comment on the material I posted. You can't refute it, so why bother, huh?

"That's like calling someone "nerd" because they're intelligent. Situations change, and new information comes to light. "Sticking to your guns" is a fucking stupid way to lead. Bush's position on stem cell research was idiotic, and still is. But you've gotta applaud his consistency, right? Wrong."

There is a difference between changing your mind with new information and flopping on your initial support. One is "I originally supported it, now I am opposed". The second is "I never supported it" - a lie. Kerry may be the former, but he always expresses the latter, which is despicable. He DID support the war, but constantly lies about it. What else will he lie about? How often, once he gets in office, will he flop? How can you trust anything the guy says? He can't keep any of his stories straight.

Also - I never said I agree with Bush on stem-cell research - in fact I disagree. I just mentioned it as an example of a President stating a position in his candidacy and keeping that stand after being elected despite intense political pressure. Even though I disagree with him on this issue, you knew where he stood prior to the election and hasn't wavered on that stand. Bush knows where he stands on the issues and so do you. The same CANNOT be said for Kerry, for whom you get different answers to the same question depending on the month you ask him.

This comment was edited on Aug 2, 12:56.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS